The battle for your mind

repcon · 27th May 2003, 06:17 AM

An article on persuasion & brian-washing techniques used at seminars, and by the mass media, churches etc.

Article here

I have attended "motovational" seminars in the past and (in hindsight) have seen these techniques used first-hand.

There is one question I have about the article; about three-quarters of the way down the author mentions ELFs and The Neurophone, my B.S. detector went off here, are these for real?

Also has anyone else experienced "persuation" like this in a business or corporate setting?

Any other links, or discussion on this topic would be welcome, as I find this "science" fascinating(esp. from an advertizing perspective).

Regards,

Chris

NoZed Avenger · 27th May 2003, 06:51 AM

I cannot speak to a fair amount of the article, though I will note that it is poorly sourced, so that the vast majoity of the claims must be taken on faith.

I doubt a fair number of the claims.

I can call BS on a couple directly, however. First, He states: "A "voice roll" is a patterned, paced style used by hypnotists when inducing a trance. It is also used by many lawyers, several of whom are highly trained hypnotists, when they desire to entrench a point firmly in the minds of the jurors. A voice roll can sound as if the speaker were talking to the beat of a metronome or it may sound as though he were emphasizing every word in a monotonous, patterned style. The words will usually be delivered at the rate of 45 to 60 beats per minute, maximizing the hypnotic effect."

This is not used by "many" lawyers -- I have never seen a single lawyer that could get away with speaking at one. . . word. . . per. . . second. . . Nor have I heard any lawyer ever try to just emphasize only certain syllables like that.

Second, the neurophone claim is complete garbage. I looked over claims related to that a couplke years ago and was utterly unimpressed with the claims made.

A fair number of the other claims about "noticing" effects while in an auditorium -- i.e., completely unverifiable anecdotes relying on past, unidentified "exeriences" -- sounds bogus.

NA

PS Not to say that emotional fervor and speaking techniques are not used in these settings, especially "charismatic" churches -- but overall, the article is not sourced enough for me to take it very seriously.

Whomp · 27th May 2003, 06:54 AM

Junk Science in my opinion.
The whole article is sprinkled with errors, assumtions and false information.

Just as one example the Vibrato information is flat ass wrong. That information is a complete fabrication.

There are just too many to list in the time I am willing to devote to this claptrap.

Some of it rings true, but the glaring errors throw the whole article in doubt for me.

(edited to rant some more)

Underemployed · 27th May 2003, 09:47 AM

Check out this thread.

And many others.

Subliminal advertising is bunk

Jeff Corey · 27th May 2003, 10:02 AM

Utter bunk.
Just a few boners:
1. Pavlov's speculations about brain function are over a century old and have no support from modern neurology that I know of. "Transmarginal inhibition"?
2. He uses the old right brain-left brain pop neurology.
3. Subliminal programming is a proven hoax.
4. The ELF experiment and the "neurophone" studies are probably made up. I know of no real literature supporting these claims.
Those are just a few of the many errors that riddle this piece.

repcon · 27th May 2003, 11:00 AM

Thank you for your replies, I'm having a debate with a friend over this topic, who believes most of that article, and I'm hoping to win him over to at least a skeptical position.

Regards, chris

Underemployed · 27th May 2003, 01:09 PM

A caveat:

While subliminal ads are nothing to be concerned over, the techniques employed to put forward a message to crowds of people (the rhythmic noises, the disorientating experiences, lack of sleep etc) are in constant use by religious and secular institutions (ever been on a training weekend for the Army?).

While much of the article is pseudoscience, it is beyond doubt that neuro-linguistics is practised by our politicians - check out Tony Blair's hand movements next time you see him do a big speech. Go to a courtroom and watch a successful lawyer at work.

Like hypnotism, these techniques are guaranteed to work on at least some of the people, all of the time. We don't know why yet, and blathering on about left and right brains isn't much of a help.

Before we run screaming to the hills, just remember that the article admits that these are old techniques - the neurophone certainly sounds like BS. The art of suggestion has been studied for centuries and it's most skilled practitioners have always been entertainers. As long as Ziegfried and Roy use their powers for good, we still have some freedom of choice.

Our leaders and Generals are certainly no more immune to get-rich-quick scams than you or I. Presented with a choice between progressive, long-term solutions to societal problems and miracle cures, they are just as likely as the next man to choose the easy option, regardless of whether or not it actually works.

Underemployed · 27th May 2003, 01:10 PM

PS I think this might be the very article I was referring to in the thread I linked to. Thanks for finding it again!

27th May 2003, 06:17 AM	#1
repcon Student Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 48	The battle for your mind An article on persuasion & brian-washing techniques used at seminars, and by the mass media, churches etc. Article here I have attended "motovational" seminars in the past and (in hindsight) have seen these techniques used first-hand. There is one question I have about the article; about three-quarters of the way down the author mentions ELFs and The Neurophone, my B.S. detector went off here, are these for real? Also has anyone else experienced "persuation" like this in a business or corporate setting? Any other links, or discussion on this topic would be welcome, as I find this "science" fascinating(esp. from an advertizing perspective). Regards, Chris
repcon Student Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 48

27th May 2003, 06:51 AM	#2
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	I cannot speak to a fair amount of the article, though I will note that it is poorly sourced, so that the vast majoity of the claims must be taken on faith. I doubt a fair number of the claims. I can call BS on a couple directly, however. First, He states: "A "voice roll" is a patterned, paced style used by hypnotists when inducing a trance. It is also used by many lawyers, several of whom are highly trained hypnotists, when they desire to entrench a point firmly in the minds of the jurors. A voice roll can sound as if the speaker were talking to the beat of a metronome or it may sound as though he were emphasizing every word in a monotonous, patterned style. The words will usually be delivered at the rate of 45 to 60 beats per minute, maximizing the hypnotic effect." This is not used by "many" lawyers -- I have never seen a single lawyer that could get away with speaking at one. . . word. . . per. . . second. . . Nor have I heard any lawyer ever try to just emphasize only certain syllables like that. Second, the neurophone claim is complete garbage. I looked over claims related to that a couplke years ago and was utterly unimpressed with the claims made. A fair number of the other claims about "noticing" effects while in an auditorium -- i.e., completely unverifiable anecdotes relying on past, unidentified "exeriences" -- sounds bogus. NA PS Not to say that emotional fervor and speaking techniques are not used in these settings, especially "charismatic" churches -- but overall, the article is not sourced enough for me to take it very seriously.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

27th May 2003, 06:54 AM	#3
Whomp Thinker Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 185	Junk Science in my opinion. The whole article is sprinkled with errors, assumtions and false information. Just as one example the Vibrato information is flat ass wrong. That information is a complete fabrication. There are just too many to list in the time I am willing to devote to this claptrap. Some of it rings true, but the glaring errors throw the whole article in doubt for me. (edited to rant some more)
Whomp Thinker Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 185	__________________ Pssst...tim...over here. Smell that? I think there's a dead whore under the mattress - Fidelio absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Carl Sagan "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." - Albert Einstein

27th May 2003, 09:47 AM	#4
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	Check out this thread. And many others. Subliminal advertising is bunk
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

27th May 2003, 11:00 AM	#6
repcon Student Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 48	Thank you for your replies, I'm having a debate with a friend over this topic, who believes most of that article, and I'm hoping to win him over to at least a skeptical position. Regards, chris
repcon Student Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 48

27th May 2003, 10:02 AM	#5
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Utter bunk. Just a few boners: 1. Pavlov's speculations about brain function are over a century old and have no support from modern neurology that I know of. "Transmarginal inhibition"? 2. He uses the old right brain-left brain pop neurology. 3. Subliminal programming is a proven hoax. 4. The ELF experiment and the "neurophone" studies are probably made up. I know of no real literature supporting these claims. Those are just a few of the many errors that riddle this piece.

27th May 2003, 01:09 PM	#7
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	A caveat: While subliminal ads are nothing to be concerned over, the techniques employed to put forward a message to crowds of people (the rhythmic noises, the disorientating experiences, lack of sleep etc) are in constant use by religious and secular institutions (ever been on a training weekend for the Army?). While much of the article is pseudoscience, it is beyond doubt that neuro-linguistics is practised by our politicians - check out Tony Blair's hand movements next time you see him do a big speech. Go to a courtroom and watch a successful lawyer at work. Like hypnotism, these techniques are guaranteed to work on at least some of the people, all of the time. We don't know why yet, and blathering on about left and right brains isn't much of a help. Before we run screaming to the hills, just remember that the article admits that these are old techniques - the neurophone certainly sounds like BS. The art of suggestion has been studied for centuries and it's most skilled practitioners have always been entertainers. As long as Ziegfried and Roy use their powers for good, we still have some freedom of choice. Our leaders and Generals are certainly no more immune to get-rich-quick scams than you or I. Presented with a choice between progressive, long-term solutions to societal problems and miracle cures, they are just as likely as the next man to choose the easy option, regardless of whether or not it actually works.
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

27th May 2003, 01:10 PM	#8
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	PS I think this might be the very article I was referring to in the thread I linked to. Thanks for finding it again!
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.